Association tiers need a rework

Litos SFC 6 UEL wrote:

Proposal: Lower the auction time. Whoever wins a worker's auction will have to run out of time, which would increase it from 24 hours to 48 hours, but not allowing them to choose to bid for the same worker until that time elapses. In this way, by reducing auction times, not being able to choose to bid for the same worker and increasing the enjoyment time, the rest of the associations are given the option.

Also lowered to a maximum of 2 simultaneous workers per association.

Propuesta: Bajar el tiempo de la subasta. Quién gane la subasta de un trabajador, tendrá que agotar el tiempo, que lo subiría de 24 horas a 48 horas pero no permitiendo optar a pujar por el mismo trabajador hasta que pase ese tiempo. De esta forma, bajando tiempos de subasta, no pudiendo optar por pujar por el mismo trabajador y subiendo el tiempo de disfrute, se da opción al resto de asociaciones.

También bajada a un máximo de 2 trabajadores simultaneos por asociación.

If the worker is eliminated, it will not be possible to bid again until after the worker's total time.

Si el trabajador es eliminado, no será posible volver a pujar hasta después del tiempo total del trabajador.

any tax on profit should always be voluntary on both sides. The player should be able to negate it at all times, and so should the association be able to turn off the option. Because there are times when a player needs his money for more important things than a deposit for a worker 3 days later (new wagons, landmark, station, ...). And every player should be able to make his choice of when to / not to contribute to the corp. If the corp isn't satisfied with the contributions of a player, they can kick him out. No point in switching the responsibilities onto the players.

Any pool of money usable for a bid on workers, as you describe, should have a 20 to 30% fee (i.e. loss). Because worker bids are limited in time for a reason. If you don't want to spend 2min to log into the game and bid, you don't deserve to be able to bid as much as you want without a cost.

Otherwise, it's just much easier to remove worker bids altogether, and just give all workers to the best team. Because even tho they are usually the most active and win most of the workers, there are times where they only have 2-3 bidders (night) and can lose workers. With a new option to bid as much as you want whenever you want, as long as you deposit it before the auction, they would win every single one. Because the top team is also the one that makes the most profit.

After playing more, and seeing how others respond to losing out on bidding for workers, I think the best option is just to remove them and give their perks to all players in a reduced format.

Boost the licenses a bit to make up for loss of goods workers and go from there.

That would balance the game dramatically and allow players to play in the non-top associations on each server. As it stands now, if you aren't in the top association, then chances are you won't get any of the decent workers. So it's just rewarding the rich, and creates a much bigger gap between players.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

After playing more, and seeing how others respond to losing out on bidding for workers, I think the best option is just to remove them and give their perks to all players in a reduced format.

Boost the licenses a bit to make up for loss of goods workers and go from there.

That would balance the game dramatically and allow players to play in the non-top associations on each server. As it stands now, if you aren't in the top association, then chances are you won't get any of the decent workers. So it's just rewarding the rich, and creates a much bigger gap between players.

Why would you do something like that? The game is a representation of capitalism. If you take the advantages of capitalism away then you lose players who are not interested in a version of socialism. As you lose players you eventually lose the game as there is no money to keep the game afloat. "Balancing" is not a good idea.

Jalistair wrote:

Why would you do something like that? The game is a representation of capitalism. If you take the advantages of capitalism away then you lose players who are not interested in a version of socialism. As you lose players you eventually lose the game as there is no money to keep the game afloat. "Balancing" is not a good idea.

Capitalism is already here in the form of USING REAL MONEY to get an advantage.

I see you aren't interested in balance, maybe you are one of those in that top association that relies on workers to win??

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Capitalism is already here in the form of USING REAL MONEY to get an advantage.

I see you aren't interested in balance, maybe you are one of those in that top association that relies on workers to win??

I play in top associations that usually gets the workers we are after and I also play in top associations where the people are too cheap to bid on a worker. In short, I play and win, with both types of corporations. Part of the fun of the game is beating other people. It doesn't matter if it is a competition, if it is the daily RG hauling, if it is daily prestige points, or if it is the worker. One of the reasons people play is the satisfaction of winning, which means the depriving others of the win. It is also the thrill of the competition that when you don't win, you calculate how to win in the future. So no, I am not in favor of your "leveling" the playing field. Were your wants turned into practice I suspect there would be a mass exodus of the game.

Jalistair wrote:

I play in top associations that usually gets the workers we are after and I also play in top associations where the people are too cheap to bid on a worker. In short, I play and win, with both types of corporations. Part of the fun of the game is beating other people. It doesn't matter if it is a competition, if it is the daily RG hauling, if it is daily prestige points, or if it is the worker. One of the reasons people play is the satisfaction of winning, which means the depriving others of the win. It is also the thrill of the competition that when you don't win, you calculate how to win in the future. So no, I am not in favor of your "leveling" the playing field. Were your wants turned into practice I suspect there would be a mass exodus of the game.

Just being curious here, does anyone know the age demographic of the players of RN?

I suspect that it is high. The majority of the people that I seem to play with are all older than me, like 50+

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Just being curious here, does anyone know the age demographic of the players of RN?

I suspect that it is high. The majority of the people that I seem to play with are all older than me, like 50+

That is correct. While we do have players from all age groups, the RN community is older (on average) than most gaming communities and we have plenty of players who are older than 50.

Salix wrote:

That is correct. While we do have players from all age groups, the RN is older (on average) than most gaming communities and we have plenty of players who are older than 50.

That might explain alot of the stubbornness to change

not wanting change has NOTHING to do with age.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

That might explain alot of the stubbornness to change

this really is a comment that has been completely misjudged, age has nothing to do with change.

I think the people who doesn't want to change to your proposal are more known with the game basics than you.

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

That might explain alot of the stubbornness to change

Sonny 9 or 90 we are all level here! But one thing I know for sure the 90 year old has done a lot more adapting to change then the 9 year old! If the 90 year old is here playing this then for certain they are adept at adaptation! Being older does not mean we cannot change, it means we have done a vast amount of changing

Baron Mikel 50 wrote:

Just being curious here, does anyone know the age demographic of the players of RN?

I suspect that it is high. The majority of the people that I seem to play with are all older than me, like 50+

I think most folks are 40 and over.

Jalistair wrote:

I think most folks are 40 and over.

I wonder how many folks are 30 or below.

Skylar RMC wrote:

I wonder how many folks are 30 or below.

less than the 40+

Skylar RMC wrote:

I wonder how many folks are 30 or below.

HA! Maybe 10% of the RN players?